What's more satisfying: "we don't understand the disease well enough to cure it" or "those guys with more money than me are assholes"?
What's interesting is that research into a lot of auto immune issues is actually starting to get somewhere, so we might actually start seeing cures for stuff in the next decade or two.
It comes down to whether you make a distinction between taking advantage of and leveraging. It actually makes sense to have that compatibility and is only really harmful to the extent that it makes it more difficult for multi-platform developers to create a compatibility layer.
(which they have to do regardless for multiple platforms, the standard isn't that they need a compatibility layer to run on PS3 and Xbox360, it is whether any directXness of the code for the 360 makes it more difficult to write code compatible with the PS3)
Surely their success (or lack thereof) in the console business is not a result of leveraging their market position in PC operating systems and Office software (they could be dumping, but that's related to their financial position, not leveraging their other products).
So instead of "every other market Microsoft has been in" you meant "each market they've managed to leverage their OS and office suite monopoly to dominate" (that is awkward because I am mostly cutting and pasting what you said)?
You would have to do some accounting to decide what the real value of the bubble market was to convince me that 1999 is the correct baseline.
Of course, the increase since 1995 (the S&P from ~500 to ~1,200, around 7.25% annual), adjusted for inflation (from ~710 to ~1,200, around 4.3% annual), is nothing to crow about (though dividends add quite nicely to that).
Someone getting an associates degree at a community college is likely increasing their earning power from ~$20,000 a year to ~$35,000 a year(those are made up, but even if they are wrong, the relative increase is somewhere north of $10,000 a year).
The difference between them paying (or taking out loans for) $2,000 a year and $3,500 a year is significant, but it doesn't exactly skew the economics away from being highly practical.
And we are astounded that callers pay different rates for local calls.
The overall costs are about the same (U.S. low price plans are somewhat more expensive than worldwide), the payment structure is just a little different.
If the $2400 is coming from grants, I don't feel bad about making the student spend $100.
If some of it is coming from loans, it is generally o.k. to spend student loans on things other than tuition, so I don't really see how the cost of a book is different for the student than the cost of tuition or lunch.
They certainly aren't cheap, but in the U.S., a $100 college level text book really isn't limiting anyone's access to education.
That may well be the case, but I'm pretty sure that the justice department would need material evidence showing that what you say was Microsoft's intent in buying Yahoo, whereas with Google, they can look into it based on their relative position in the search market.
(I tend to think that Microsoft is getting into the internet because they see it as a valuable place to do business; Office seems to be doing fine on its own, and the number of people moving away from Windows is not yet 'huge')
Microsoft isn't the market leader in internet advertising and internet search advertising. Microhoo still would have been the second place company behind Google.
Of course, even though the global population has grown by a factor of 10 in the last 200 years, there hasn't been a material shortage that lasted more than about 10 years, they have all been solved by more efficient extraction or substitution.
That doesn't mean there won't be one (Malthus will eventually be right, there is only so much mass on earth that can be turned into human flesh), but the whah, whah, whah there won't be any flat screens stuff is just nonsense.
Try to take the financial news with a grain of salt. The performance of the stock markets isn't very good right now, but all that means is that they are trading at ~2006 levels:
It isn't great for people who were over-invested in stocks relative to their risk sensitivity, but for anybody under about 45, it should be irrelevant.
And while the dollar has slid a considerable amount, the general behavior of a chart like this one:
is to eventually reverse, not to eventually go all the way to zero. Hopefully it reverses before 0.50, rather than somewhere lower (the recent bump up is encouraging but doesn't really say much about the long term trend).
The wonderful thing about copyright is that you are free to repudiate it. Complaining that other people do not want to repudiate their copyrights is exactly that.
(Note that open access will surely drive the costs of education texts quickly down, but the wacky moral war that you are talking about will never happen)
Slashdot Mirror
How nice for you.
There is a fair chunk of "satellite is the only high speed option" people. Satellite is way to expensive for what it is.
Actually no, I don't.
That's the most common reason. Disabling the link scanner component is another.
There is a solution to the exclamation:
http://grandstreamdreams.blogspot.com/2008/04/taming-avg-free-version-8.html
In short, run "avg_free_stf_*.exe /REMOVE_FEATURE fea_AVG_SafeSurf /REMOVE_FEATURE fea_AVG_SafeSearch" from a cmd box or the run box.
Sort of a ridiculous contortion to get to an option that should be more available, but it works.
That doesn't even make any sense (here be a hint: each and every NATO country is a US ally).
What's more satisfying: "we don't understand the disease well enough to cure it" or "those guys with more money than me are assholes"?
What's interesting is that research into a lot of auto immune issues is actually starting to get somewhere, so we might actually start seeing cures for stuff in the next decade or two.
I wonder how romantic women would really think it was if they accepted that they whole thing started as a deposit on a hoo-hah.
What is it you think a signature adds to the transaction?
There is plenty of bad stuff going on, but as long as somewhere more than 85% of the people who want jobs have them, the doom and gloom is overblown.
It comes down to whether you make a distinction between taking advantage of and leveraging. It actually makes sense to have that compatibility and is only really harmful to the extent that it makes it more difficult for multi-platform developers to create a compatibility layer.
(which they have to do regardless for multiple platforms, the standard isn't that they need a compatibility layer to run on PS3 and Xbox360, it is whether any directXness of the code for the 360 makes it more difficult to write code compatible with the PS3)
Surely their success (or lack thereof) in the console business is not a result of leveraging their market position in PC operating systems and Office software (they could be dumping, but that's related to their financial position, not leveraging their other products).
Google's momma so fat, when she gets on the internet, she really is on the internet!
So instead of "every other market Microsoft has been in" you meant "each market they've managed to leverage their OS and office suite monopoly to dominate" (that is awkward because I am mostly cutting and pasting what you said)?
You would have to do some accounting to decide what the real value of the bubble market was to convince me that 1999 is the correct baseline.
Of course, the increase since 1995 (the S&P from ~500 to ~1,200, around 7.25% annual), adjusted for inflation (from ~710 to ~1,200, around 4.3% annual), is nothing to crow about (though dividends add quite nicely to that).
Console gaming? Zune? Peripherals? Servers? Databases?
Someone getting an associates degree at a community college is likely increasing their earning power from ~$20,000 a year to ~$35,000 a year(those are made up, but even if they are wrong, the relative increase is somewhere north of $10,000 a year).
The difference between them paying (or taking out loans for) $2,000 a year and $3,500 a year is significant, but it doesn't exactly skew the economics away from being highly practical.
Efficient markets require perfect knowledge. Free markets require a relative lack of regulation.
If people actually cared, prices would go down, the information is available. People don't care.
And we are astounded that callers pay different rates for local calls.
The overall costs are about the same (U.S. low price plans are somewhat more expensive than worldwide), the payment structure is just a little different.
If the $2400 is coming from grants, I don't feel bad about making the student spend $100.
If some of it is coming from loans, it is generally o.k. to spend student loans on things other than tuition, so I don't really see how the cost of a book is different for the student than the cost of tuition or lunch.
They certainly aren't cheap, but in the U.S., a $100 college level text book really isn't limiting anyone's access to education.
That may well be the case, but I'm pretty sure that the justice department would need material evidence showing that what you say was Microsoft's intent in buying Yahoo, whereas with Google, they can look into it based on their relative position in the search market.
(I tend to think that Microsoft is getting into the internet because they see it as a valuable place to do business; Office seems to be doing fine on its own, and the number of people moving away from Windows is not yet 'huge')
Microsoft isn't the market leader in internet advertising and internet search advertising. Microhoo still would have been the second place company behind Google.
Of course, even though the global population has grown by a factor of 10 in the last 200 years, there hasn't been a material shortage that lasted more than about 10 years, they have all been solved by more efficient extraction or substitution.
That doesn't mean there won't be one (Malthus will eventually be right, there is only so much mass on earth that can be turned into human flesh), but the whah, whah, whah there won't be any flat screens stuff is just nonsense.
Try to take the financial news with a grain of salt. The performance of the stock markets isn't very good right now, but all that means is that they are trading at ~2006 levels:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^GSPC&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
It isn't great for people who were over-invested in stocks relative to their risk sensitivity, but for anybody under about 45, it should be irrelevant.
And while the dollar has slid a considerable amount, the general behavior of a chart like this one:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=USDEUR=X&t=5y
is to eventually reverse, not to eventually go all the way to zero. Hopefully it reverses before 0.50, rather than somewhere lower (the recent bump up is encouraging but doesn't really say much about the long term trend).
I doubt it.
The wonderful thing about copyright is that you are free to repudiate it. Complaining that other people do not want to repudiate their copyrights is exactly that.
(Note that open access will surely drive the costs of education texts quickly down, but the wacky moral war that you are talking about will never happen)